Sunday, January 3, 2016

Part III: Highlights from 2012 NYSED emails regarding their plan to share student data with inBloom

NYSED's emails to the Gates Foundation about inBloom and Wireless Generation from 2012 are below; highlights include a dinner party at Merryl Tisch's home, to which Commissioner King invites an array of corporate reform leaders -- to the dismay of Joe Scantlebury of the Gates Foundation. Also amusing is their account when I crashed a Gates-sponsored " SLC Learning Camp" designed to lure software developers into designing products to take advantage of the wealth of personal student data to be gathered and shared by inBloom. You can also check out Part I and Part II for more background on this FOIL and excerpts from 2011.

1/6/12: Sandeep Chellani of NYC DOE warns
Asst. Commissioner Ken Wagner and Doug Jaffe of the Regents Research Fund that the NYC Comptroller John Liu is about to reject the DOE’s
renewal of its contract with Wireless for the DOE data system known as ARIS.“This information will likely … create challenges for us pushing this
through.As this might have down streams
[sic] effects on your work we wanted to give you a heads up…”

NYC Comptroller John Liu

This rejection is announced ten days later, on Jan. 16,
2012.According to the NYC Comptroller, the DOE re-assigned the last month of the expiring five-year, $83
million contract from IBM to Wireless, which then allowed them to give Wireless
two more years without undergoing competitive bidding.“Under that move, Klein’s company’s inherits
IBM’s option to a two-year renewal.”

Susan Lerner of Common Cause comments: “This definitely has the appearance of an
arrangement to avoid proper scrutiny and public oversight…In this time of
budget shortfalls and economic challenge, we need greater transparency and
scrupulous competitive bidding to ensure the public is receiving the greatest
benefit from these large highly specialized contracts.”

Yet the rejection only delays the awarding
of the contract but doesn’t stop it – as unlike the State Comptroller's cancellation of the NYSED's Wireless contract, the NYC
Comptroller doesn’t have the authority to cancel DOE contracts, just delay
them.

1/10/12: Rachel Monahan writes in the Daily News that the earlier State
Comptroller’s rejection of NYSED’s Wireless contract may endanger their $700M Race
to the Top grant, since it could delay the data tracking of student
performance. “New York . . . has recently
hit a roadblock that not only impedes Race to the Top but could threaten other
key reform initiatives as well,” said US Education Secretary Arne Duncan.”

An email follows
from Joan Lebow of Wireless to Tom Dunn and Dennis Tompkins of NYSED:“Did you guys see Rachel’s latest story?Do you have a PR contact in Duncan’s
office?Her lead is the most absurd A
equal C stretch of fiction.“ Yet later, when
opposition to inBloom intensified, Ken Wagner NYSED would use the same excuse
when arguing against pulling out of the project: that pulling out would endanger their RTTT grant.
At this point, inBloom has apparently replaced NYSED's original plan (and obligation) to create a separate internal state student data system.

2/8/12: Sharren
Bates, the Chief Product Officer of the SLC for the Gates Foundation, bugs Ken
Wagner about the need to sign a strict non-disclosure agreement .

The same day,
Stacey Childress of Gates emails David Jaffe, Regents fellow, Wagner and King. In reply to King’s email and an NYSED draft
paper dated 2/2/12 (which was not made available through the FOIL), she argues
against King’s concerns that the data system may “lock in” certain providers to
the exclusion of others.Childress
emphasizes that they want to encourage as many vendors as possible to develop
high-quality applications.

Chancellor Merryl Tisch

3/16/12: Joe Scantlebury of the
Gates Foundation thanks Merryl Tisch for agreeing to “meet with our US Program
President [Allan Golston] and hosting him and a small team at your home for
dinner on Friday.”He asks Tisch for her
address, expected arrival time, and the names of the other invitees.This leads to a hilarious chain of emails,
when Scantlebury learns from King’s assistant Anne Coonradt that Tisch and King
have invited several extraneous people, including Cami Anderson, then the Newark
Superintendent, Rich Buery of the Children’s Aid Society (now Deputy Mayor
under Mayor de Blasio), and Dacia Toll of Achievement First charter schools,
along with Amy McIntosh and Kristen Huff, Regents fellows.

Scantlebury politely protests: “This is quite a list.Curious about the Achievement First and
Newark Invites as Allan will be most curious about the NY State work and will
likely bypass a direct discussion with NYC.Please help me understand the connections.Also-the foundation has been asked to
consider deeper investment in Newark.To
date, we have passed on that opportunity.Does this create expectations that we can meet for Newark and similarly
Achievement First?”

John King interjects: “The Chancellor understood from your
conversation that there was a general interest in both reform in NYS and
inviting an array of partners.As you
know, Achievement First has a large NYC presence and Cami was NYC TFA ED (she
and Amy worked together when Amy was the TFA NYC board chair) and a District 75
sup in NYC.I don’t think there are any
funding expectations, just hopes for an interesting conversation.We are awaiting responses form additional
colleagues.”

Scantlebury protests once
again:“This is feeling really big.Is
there an agenda or program, will there be a sit down meal or standing
reception? Please advise.”

Joe Scantlebury of Gates Foundation

John King replies: “The Chancellor is planning a sit down
dinner.I assume no program, but maybe
short remarks at the start of dinner from the Chancellor and me?Would something more formal be better?”

Scantlebury: “Thanks John.I want to make sure that Allan has maximum time with you and the
chancellor, so hopefully you all will be seated together.Nothing more formal is necessary.”

(Sadly, no record of the dinner
exists, and whether Allan Golston came away from it with major pitches from
TFA, Newark school, or Achievement First.America Achieves had already gotten Gates
funding, and got more in 2012 and 2013 – totaling $4 million. TFA got its
largest Gates grant the following fall – for $1.5 million – but for its Colorado and
Louisiana chapter to use videos in their training. Achievement First also
received its biggest Gates grants – three totaling $1.8 million – in July and
November 2012, following the dinner. Poor Newark - it had already received $3 million for a data system to support teacher “growth
models” from Gates through the New Schools Venture Fund in 2011, but as far as
we know, got nothing more after that dinner.)

3/ 22/ 12: Henry Hipps, VP of
Gates, informs John King that they have deleted the restriction from the MOU
that would bar NYSED’s ability to inform the public about facts related to the
project if “the content of such …has already been released publicly.”Yet “The SLC would still like advance notice
and copies for awareness purposes and so that it has an opportunity to work
with states to clarify or correct statements as needed and appropriate.”

They also added an Exhibit B, that
described how the data system would include “over 400 granular data elements
and the flexibility to add more as needs evolve”; in 39 Domain types, including
disciplinary data, student record, report card, assessments, supplemental
services, demographic information, etc. “The expected datasets that will be
stored in SLI will continue to develop over time with feedback from our Pilot
States.” Attachment C, “the Data and Privacy Plan”, absolves the Gates
Foundation of any responsibility if there are breaches in storage or
transmission.

The MOU is finally signed by
NYSED on April 13, 2012.It contains the
phrase: “NYSED agrees it will use all
reasonable efforts to notify the Company prior to referencing the Company, this
MOU, the SSLI Pilot, or the Technology Build in any press releases, media
statements, press or media interviews, or presentations. NYSED agrees to use
all reasonable efforts to provide the Company with an advance copy of any press
releases, media statements, presentations, or other written material intended
for public release in order to allow the Company to review and provide
comment.Except as, and to the extent,
required by law, NYSED agrees to not disclose, and will maintain the
confidentiality of certain specifications and/or software specifically related
to protecting data privacy and security that may be disclosed to NYSED under
this MOU and that the Company marks or otherwise indicates in writing is to be
treated as confidential, restricted or proprietary.”

US Education Secretary Arne Duncan

5/21/12: John King invites Joe
Scantlebury of the Gates Foundation to a “special roundtable discussion with Arne
Duncan on June 4th at Citigroup, where he and Tisch “will address a
range of topics – from the Common Core to teacher & leader effectiveness in
school turnaround to engaging parents and communities [Hah!] – and field your
questions in an off-the-record conversation exclusively for the supporters of
the Regents Research Fund and a handful of invited guests.”

5/23/12: Scantlebury politely
declines, but say he will send “our NY Policy Advisor Vincent Marrone” to the
meeting.[Marrone is later interviewed by
a Westchester paper, and described as one of the few parents who support the
Common Core at one of King’s contentious town hall meetings in the fall of 2013. He doesn’t
identify himself as a Gates lobbyist but a sharp-eyed reader later does.]

6/29/12:Matthew Gross, head of the Gates-funded Regents Research
Fund writes Bill Tucker, Deputy Director of US Programs for the Gates
Foundation to introduce him to the newly-named Commissioner, John King. “Bill, I feel remiss in not doing this
earlier, but I’d like to introduce you to Commissioner John King, who has
maintained a relationship with several of your colleagues at the Gates
Foundation over the years.Bill and John
you are two of the most interesting and thoughtful people I know and I do hope
you connect soon.I’m sure sparks will
fly.” Again, this suggests how the
Regents Fellows acted as a bridge between Gates and NYSED.

Matthew Gross of the Regents Research Fund

10/1/12:At some point in October 2012 a separate
“Service Agreement” is executed that appears to change some of the terms of the
agreement, including adding FedRamp security provisions to the data cloud that
will hold the student information; and that NYSED may not grant access to the
data to third parties without authorization by a school district “or as
otherwise authorized by FERPA. However , a state education agency may be a
third party application provider of a school district that is a customer of SLI
Service for such purposes, and if so, may grant access to another 3rd
party application provider to assist it in performing these services.”

The contract also has a clause that
“If a school district decides they no
longer wish to use the SLI system, they may request that district student data
be deleted from the SLI data store.”Though later several NY Superintendents demand in writing that their student data be deleted, their request to the Gates Foundation is ignored.

Attorney Norman Siegel

10/14/12: Frustrated at our inability to get any information from NYSED, Class Size
Matters, along with parent leaders and attorney Norman Siegel, hold a press conference in NYC, and release a letter to to NY State Attorney General and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, demanding that the
State release its contract with the Shared Learning Collaborative, hold public
hearings, and require parental consent before sharing any student’s personally
identifiable information with the SLC or the Gates Foundation.

Later that day, SED finally releases its Service Agreement with the Shared Learning Collaborative to
reporters. It confirms our worst fears
that parental consent is not going to be required; in addition, there are only
minimal protections from “data leakage” and the Gates Foundation has written the
contract to shield itself from any financial and legal liability if the
agreement violates FERPA or other privacy laws, or if it allows data breaches to
occur.

10/18/12:With a subject line “Activist parent attending NYC Camp”, Genevieve Haas from the PR
firm Waggener Edstrom, emails Ken Wagner and Tom Dunn of NYSED, copying others
at Gates and NYSED, that they have
noticed that “Leonie Haimson has registered “ for the SLC “Learning camp” to be
held in NYC on October 20; She describes me as the “Driving force behind the recent letter to the NYSED”- presumably the one we
released to the Attorney General and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tish at the
press conference.

Haas says she will
be attending the camp “to support SLC
communications with Leonie and to keep track of how she may try to leverage any
content from the camp.”She adds:

“While we will be prepared to remove anyone
who creates a major disruption at the event, our strong preference is to engage
with Leonie (or any critics) politely and substantively on side.Sharren Bates will be available to speak with
her with me staffing.We should expect
Leonie to tweet, record and blog her experience both in real time and after the
fact.Tom, please let me know if you’d
like to proactively plan on speaking with Leonie, or if not, how you would like
me to handle if she requests time with you.”

Genevieve Haas of Waggener Edstrom, PR firm for inBloom

Tom Dunn of NYSED
replies that “we saw her registration
last night…She appears to have signed up at the very beginning.”He tells Genevieve that “Ken, Dennis and I will confer before Saturday to make sure SED is one
mind as to how present we’ll be during the camp.”

Dennis Tompkins of
NYSED emails that “the SLC agreement has
been posted on our webpage for several days.To the best of my knowledge Leonie has not asked anyone in our office
for the agreement.”[Of course not,
I got it from reporters after our press conference. ]

Genevieve Haas
follows up with an email to Tom Dunn, cc; Wagner, Kathleen Moorhead, MaryAnn
Van Blarcom, Dennis Tompkins, Jonathan Burman of NYSED, Amrit Singh and Doug
Jaffee of the Regents Research Fund, Stacey Childress, and Katie Ford of
Waggener, to share a “Q and A that we
developed to address SLC-specific questions raised by the Class Size Matters
letter sent earlier this week.This is
only messaging for SLC and we will of course refer any questions specific to NY
to NYSED, but we wanted you to have this language (which has been vetted by our
legal counsel) which will inform any conversations we have about privacy at the
camp this weekend.Tom, my cell is
-------, if you need to reach me quickly.“

Stacy Childress
interjects, “Seems to me the important
point on this topic is not whether or when asked NYSED for the agreement.The important point is within 2 business days
of a countersigned agreement between NYSED and SLC, NYSED posted it for public
viewing on its website.”

10/20/12: Along with my friend
and technology consultant, Justin Wedes,
I attend the Gates Foundation “Shared
Learning Collaborative camp” for software developers in NYC. We meet
Sharren Bates, who makes it clear that they will not recognize the right of parents
to consent before their children's data will be shared with third parties, and that this data
will include names, test scores, grades, disciplinary and attendance records,
special education status and IEPs, etc.

She
insists that the “district” will be making all the decisions as to which data to
share with vendors and under what conditions, and that neither parent notification nor consent will
be required.When asked, she explains
that the “district” means the NYC Chancellor will be making those decisions.I tell her that most NYC parents do not trust Chancellor Walcott
to make these highly sensitive decisions for their children.She describes the great benefits of inBloom,
and I explain that we’ve heard it all before, when the $85 million DOE data
system called ARIS was being touted, and yet few parents or teachers find it
useful.Only after I return home and
google her name do I discover that she she directed the
development of ARIS for DOE. For more on
what transpired at this event, see
my blog here.

Later that day,
Genevieve Haas reports back to the group:

Sharren Bates of Gates Foundation and then CPO of inBloom

“Hi all,
As I shared with Tom, we held a tense but civil conversation with Leonie (which
she recorded) and her associate Justin who was here to ask more pointed on
technical questions like specifically how access to data is authorized.I will share more complete notes after I’ve
had time to clean them up, but the basic issue is that while she understands
that SLC is relying on the district’s determination of legitimate education
need, she (and the parents she feels she speaks for do not trust the
district.She b believes SLC should
assume the moral (vs legal) responsibility to ensure parents know what the
district is doing with student data.She
also just fundamentally feels that third party apps making money by using
student data is always bad.

I chatted separately with Amrit [Amrit Singh,
Regents Fellow in charge of the data project ] and we touched on how we might
develop some very simple language (including a hypothetical scenario) that
explains why third party application providers would need student PII in order
to provide valuable services.Her lack
of technical knowledge makes it difficult for her to conceptualize how student
data is being used to personalize education. [Hah!]

A sign at the NYC SLC Camp, with the claim parents are part of their "community"

She asked about Wireless Gen, but after Sharren
explained that WG will not own or host the student data and that it will not own
the rights to the technology it’s building, we did not touch on WG again. Interestingly,
Sharren Bates suggested that Leonie actually propose an application that would
enable parents to see how their student’s data is being shared via SLC, so we
took some time to help her map out her concept.Unfortunately, we couldn’t pair her with a developer today because she
missed the window to match up with a dev, but we plan to continue engaging and
will look for an opportunity to introduce her to a relevant dev if possible. “
[The chief developer told me they weren’t interested in engaging with parents that
point; only with teachers.]

She has now left (and doesn’t plan to come back
tomorrow) but we do plan to keepengaging and she proactively suggested that she might be willing to
partner with us on a forum for parents to get engaged (nothing that we
committed to).As will not surprise you,
she is hostile toward the NYSED and the district and generally feels that
parent rights are not protected by policy makers.”[You can say that again!]

Please let me know if you have concerns or questions.Although much of the decision-making
authority that she challenged lies in SEA/LEA hands, which we explained she did
not ask for a contact at SED, so we didn’t provide one.I will stay in touch about our ongoing
engagement with her.”[Which
proves non-existent; when I followed up with Sharren Bates, who had expressed
interest in briefing parents on the project, she refuses to attend.]

11/01/12: Henry Hipps
sends a draft “Data Privacy and Security Policy” for the SLC; explaining, “We have developed a process to get input
from SLC states and districts in time to get to a final version before the
December v1 Go Live.”

11/16/12: Amrit
Singh, Regents Fellow, sends Hipps “NYSED’s edits and comments on the policy
document”, to which Hipps responds to by saying “I’ve forwarded to the legal
team” sent via an email on his Windows Phone.

12/4/12: Email
from Hipps to the state “partners” telling them SLC will soon morph into a
separate corporation called inBloom, which will be “working to make
personalized learning a reality for every US student.inBloom provides technology services that
allow states and public school district to better integrate student data and
learning applications…etc. “ And: “If
you have questions about how the inBloom brand should be used or need assets
depicted in the guidelines, please reach out to Waggener Edstrom [their PR
firm].”

Now read Part IV , the Final Chapter, recounting how inBloom's launch in 2013 was immediately accompanied by controversy, followed quickly by parent protests, and ultimate collapse.